You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

nydwracu comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2014 08:18:19PM 6 points [-]

By the way, that sentence is not an attack on NRx, but a proof of one of its principles - that homogeneity is useful.

Well, yes, I've been saying this from the beginning -- the word "neoreaction" fucked everything up. If you don't have a word for the whole cluster, each point can be argued; if you do, pro- and anti- become two factions, and you get the usual factional conflicts.

In particular, the strategy I suspect Nick Land was playing by was a mistake. Trying to create a faction and make it as loud as possible works in academia; not so much anywhere else.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 November 2014 08:44:07PM 2 points [-]

Trying to create a faction and make it as loud as possible works in academia; not so much anywhere else.

It's the SOP for politics. "When bad men combine, the good must associate." (Edmund Burke, 1770)

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2014 09:21:04PM 3 points [-]

How many successful political factions have gone out and given themselves names, and how many were only named by their enemies?

What, for example, do the 'cultural Marxists' call themselves?